Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Perhaps you misunderstood, perhaps not.

If our system fails 1/100 times, I’d rather it fail on a pool of people who include neo-Nazi trolls than, you, for instance.

I’m glad the conviction was overturned as well.

Punitive brutality (outdoor tent concentration camps, water-boarding, execution), locking up people for their beliefs, over-incarceration and “throwing away the key” mentality neither engenders reform nor a civilized society... it suggests normalization of psychopathy.

I don’t agree with any of those things.

However, I still hold a position that when a system fails, I’d rather it fail in the direction of Nazis.

But perhaps you are saying is that in a system with 1/100 failure, I might be less incentivized to fix the problem if the 1% end up being people I don’t like — that seems to be an incentive to be aware of.

I don’t think someone should go to jail for accessing public data (or for being stupid and having “neoNazi” beliefs). I’d vote for laws to correct such problems in the system.

However, as a human, when the system fails, I’d prefer it fail in the direction of Nazis.

Perhaps I have room to mature or grow in this area, I’m open to it.

You keep saying "when the system fails, I’d prefer it fail in the direction of Nazis". That statement is not much different from "When cancer strikes, I’d prefer it strike one of the Nazis."

Neither cancer nor the US judicial system's unfairness discriminate towards Nazis. Your sentiment, "when the system fails, I’d prefer it fail in the direction of Nazis", goes nowhere because when the system fails, it does not look for Nazis to fail in the direction of. There's just no connection between the two parts of your statement.

Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact